ArticleBMC oral health2022
Performance of the London Atlas, Willems, and a new quick method for dental age estimation in Chinese Uyghur children.
Article in BMC oral health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Panoramic radiograph-based dental age estimation in children and adolescents using multi-tooth methods: a scoping review of methods used and reported accuracy (2020-2025).BMC oral health · 2026Pooled it
- Dental age estimation using the London atlas- which tooth and which tooth stage predict age best (excluding 3rd molars)?International journal of legal medicine · 2025Article
- Accuracy of the London Atlas and RP Atlas in age estimation of Southern Brazilians.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Review
- A hybrid convolutional neural network model for dental age estimation using buccal alveolar bone level for Saudi children.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Validation of London Atlas for forensic age estimation in Koreans by comparing with Lee's and Willems' methods.Heliyon · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNumerous dental age estimation methods have been devised and practised for decades. Among these, the London Atlas and Willems methods were two of the most frequently adopted, however dependent on atlantes or tables. A new estimation method less reliant on external measurement could be efficient and economical.
aimThis study aimed to evaluate the utility and applicability of the dental age estimation methods of London Atlas, Willems, and a new quick method that subtracts the number of developing teeth from the universal root mature age of 16 years in one of the lower quadrants reported in this work among Chinese Uyghur children.
methodsA comparative cross-sectional study was conducted. Subjects enrolled in the study were screened according to preset inclusion and exclusion criteria. The observer then obtained the dental age from the subjects' panoramic radiographs based on the estimated rules of the London Atlas, Willems, and a new quick method. Paired t-test was used to compare the accuracy and precision of the above three estimation methods. Independent-sample t-test was used to find the difference between gender.
resultsTotally, 831 radiographs entered the analyses of this study. Among the three methods evaluated, the Willems method, in particular, showed a distinct underestimated tendency. The mean error of the dental age predicted by the London Atlas, the Willems method, and the quick method was 0.06 ± 1.13 years, 0.44 ± 1.14 years, and 0.30 ± 0.63 years, respectively. The mean absolute error was 0.86 ± 0.75 years according to the London Atlas, 1.17 ± 0.89 years under the Willems method, and 0.70 ± 0.54 years under our quick method. No significant difference was found between the chronological age and dental age using the London Atlas, generally for the 10 to 15 years group (p > 0.05), but our quick method for the 15-16 years children (p < 0.05) and Willems method (p < 0.001).
conclusionThe London Atlas outperformed the Willems method with better accuracy and precision among 10-15 years Chinese Uyghur children. Our new quick method may be comparable to the London Atlas for children aged 10-14 and potentially become a more straightforward dental age prediction instrument.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.